The Ed Whitson Myth

Ever since Ed Whitson's brief and inglorious Yankee tenure following his free agent signing 20 seasons ago, he's been cited as the example of the pitcher who just can't cut it in the Bronx.

In successive seasons, Yankee fans have dealt with the ghost of Whitson as Jeff Weaver and, most recently, Javier Vazquez utterly failed to live up to expectations that they would quickly rise to the top of the team's starting rotation.

In 2005, two high-priced free agent pitchers will try to survive their first season in pinstripes so that they may earn the extended stay in New York that eluded those previously mentioned. Will the Yanks see a reasonable return on their substantial investments in Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright or will they be forced to go back to the drawing board with their rotation next year (if not sooner)?

Despite its shaky logical foundation, you won't find anyone in the Yankee hierarchy question the Whitson myth because it absolves all of them of culpability for mistakes. If a Yankee free agent pitcher doesn't work out, it's not because he was never worthy of the investment or because the coaching staff failed in its mission to ensure that players perform at or near their highest possible levels. These players fail because they're spooked by the beast that is New York. Many in the media foster the myth rather than examine it because they are viewed as the teeth of this beast and it's better to be seen as tough than toothless.

With the exception of his second Yankee season, Whitson's career seems like most other players who manage to last 10 or more years. In ERA, for example, he ranged from 10-to-20 percent below league average to 10-to-20 percent above it. And he fell within this range before during and after his Yankee tenure. According to baseball-reference.com, Whitson's ERA as a ratio to the league ERA (with less than 100 being below average and more than 100 being above) was 89, 114, 85, 125, 81, 84 and 110 before signing with the Yanks. In his first year in the Bronx, Whitson posted an 83, which was well in line with his established performance. Yes, he cratered the following year with a 61 but pitched almost that poorly after his trade back to San Diego (maybe due to that that electrically charged Padres environment). Whitson then followed up with 84, 91, 132, 148 and 75 before retiring.

Weaver's ERA relative to the league in his full season as a Yankee was unlike anything he's seen before or since and Vazquez last performed that poorly as a 22-year-old. Perhaps these two pitchers are better examples of Ed Whitson Disease than is Whitson himself.

Or maybe they were just unlucky. There's a well-regarded school of thought in baseball that once a batter makes contact, fortune and defense determine whether the ball put in play results in a hit or an out. Weaver's hit percentages on balls in play the last five years: 29, 30, 30, 35, 30. Guess which of those numbers came in his full Yankee season. (Remember, these five percentage points turn a .250 batting average allowed to .300.)

Vazquez's percentages the past four years: 29, 31, 29, 28 (Yankees). But he pitched well enough to make the all star team in the first half. So maybe his luck turned (or defense turned sour) after the break. Indeed, his hit percentage climbed from 26 percent in the first half to 31 percent in the second. This alone is not enough to fully explain the decline and ignores the alarming loss of command (K/BB ratio). As injuries have been ruled out by his present and former team as well as by Vazquez himself, this is cause to examine the coaching staff. All Mel Stottlemeyer could come up with (after the fact, apparently) was that Vazquez was "choking his fastball." If that's true, it seems like a relatively minor and easy fix. The only alternative theory is that Vazquez decided that New York was too tough for him sometime after the all star break (despite the Yankees having a playoff spot virtually assured).

Let's go inside the numbers and try to determine what the future holds for Pavano and Wright.

The pitcher most statistically comparable to Pavano, in my opinion, is Charles Nagy, a nice pitcher at his peak but not someone you wanted leading a postseason charge. Pavano's ERA relative the league varies more significantly than did Whitson's two decades ago: 151, 73, 79, 94, 137. If Pavano comes in 10-to-20 percent below league average, it shouldn't shock or be seen as evidence of a lack of character. It's just part of who Pavano is as a player.

Wright is generally viewed as the more questionable signing. In fact, GM Brian Cashman all but conceded that Wright wasn't worth the money and blamed the contract on market forces (which means the Mets and Kris Benson, who will be cited as the cause for every failed winter investment regardless of how he performs). But a reasonable case can be made that Wright deserved about the same ERA in 2003 that he earned in 2004, with the difference being attributed to a ridiculous 37 percent hit rate on balls in play in '03 compared to 30 percent last year.

The player most comparable to Wright from the list provided by baseball-reference.com is Chris Carpenter. As is the case with Carpenter, it's hard to make much sense of Wright's recent history, given his chronic shoulder problems and long road back to major league relevance. The Yankees likely recoup their investment in Wright if he's able to sustain a starter's workload for the next three seasons. If you think the odds against that happening are long, remember that Wright has already beaten longer odds by making it back this far to begin with.